No charges expected for Detroit HS coach who shot, killed teen robber

[Jeebus]

A 70-year-old Detroit high school basketball coach will not be charged for fatally shooting a teenager and wounding another while they were trying to rob him outside of a school, a prosecutor said Thursday.

Two boys, ages 16 and 15, claimed they had a gun. If they thought the 70-year-old coach would be an easy target, they guessed wrong. Robinson struggled with the teens and then pulled out his legal, license firearm and shot them. Michael Scott, 16, was killed by the gunfire. His 15-year-old accomplice was injured.

"It's just still unreal to me. I can't believe this happened," said Scott's older brother, Calvin Stingall. Scott's older brother may be surprised by what happened outside the Detroit school but his younger brother already had been busted for the armed robbery of a Jet's Pizza. He was awaiting trial.

"It's one of those situations, if people come to rob you at gun point and all of a sudden you're sitting there and you defend yourself or others, you have the legal right to do it. There is no crime," Flood said.

How dare he defend himself against two little boys, probably just on their way to buy Skittles and ice tea in their hoodies.....

[sigmalady]

Actions have consequences.

[Marshan Man]

Nope, no skittles or iced tea here. they were robbing the guy. One of em was awaiting trial for another robbery. SMH... Oh well, lesson learned a little too late

[Omaha Beach]

If this had happened in Maryland, especially the Baltimore metro area the teacher would be dead instead because most likely he could not have convinced the State police to grant him a carry permit.

[slapshot]

A 70-year-old Detroit high school basketball coach will not be charged for fatally shooting a teenager and wounding another while they were trying to rob him outside of a school, a prosecutor said Thursday.

How dare he defend himself against two little boys, probably just on their way to buy Skittles and ice tea in their hoodies.....

Here's the relevant info:

"Two boys, ages 16 and 15, claimed they had a gun. If they thought the 70-year-old coach would be an easy target, they guessed wrong.

Robinson struggled with the teens and then pulled out his legal, license firearm and shot them. Michael Scott, 16, was killed by the gunfire. His 15-year-old accomplice was injured."


First off, let me congratulate gramps. BUT, as per the article, the 70 year old claimed they said they have a gun. OK. Was one found at the scene (was not mentioned)? Although, if they indeed had a gun, once this 70 year old made any moves to stop the robbery....I suspect he would have been shot. It will be interesting to see, when all the evidence comes out, whether these teens did, in fact, have a gun. Now....will this ultimately end up in court, with the victims parents claiming he shot two unarmed teens? Not saying they didn't have a gun, just that there was no mention of finding a gun on the perps.


HYPOTHETICAL: Teens were unarmed.

To put a different spin on this - Snce it was black on black, in Detroit, there may be no outcry. But had this had been a white male shooting two unarmed black teens....in Detroit...oh baby! Anybody want to field this one....?

Which brings up an interesting question: If confronted by someone (white/black) who claims to have a gun in their pocket, but never actually produces it, are you leagally allowed to take out your gun and shoot them based soley on their threat? Anybody know what the law actually says...in Md...outside your home?

[Marshan Man]

Here's the relevant info:

"Two boys, ages 16 and 15, claimed they had a gun. If they thought the 70-year-old coach would be an easy target, they guessed wrong.

Robinson struggled with the teens and then pulled out his legal, license firearm and shot them. Michael Scott, 16, was killed by the gunfire. His 15-year-old accomplice was injured."


First off, let me congratulate gramps. BUT, as per the article, the 70 year old claimed they said they have a gun. OK. Was one found at the scene (was not mentioned)? Although, if they indeed had a gun, once this 70 year old made any moves to stop the robbery....I suspect he would have been shot. It will be interesting to see, when all the evidence comes out, whether these teens did, in fact, have a gun. Now....will this ultimately end up in court, with the victims parents claiming he shot two unarmed teens? Not saying they didn't have a gun, just that there was no mention of finding a gun on the perps.


HYPOTHETICAL: Teens were unarmed.

To put a different spin on this - Snce it was black on black, in Detroit, there may be no outcry. But had this had been a white male shooting two unarmed black teens....in Detroit...oh baby! Anybody want to field this one....?

Which brings up an interesting question: If confronted by someone (white/black) who claims to have a gun in their pocket, but never actually produces it, are you leagally allowed to take out your gun and shoot them based soley on their threat? Anybody know what the law actually says...in Md...outside your home?

Who cares? People CLAIM they have guns and rob banks. Don't wannna die don't do the claiming, and I doubt if this had been white on black if anyone would care either.

Don't go around robbing people (with a gun or not) and you won't have anything to worry about.

[Chesapeake Spirit]

I think that a 70 year old might not be able to win a struggle with 2 teens, even if they did not have a gun. Does he not have the right to defend himself from the attackers, who clearly have an advantage? Or should he let them maybe pummel him to death?

[Jeebus]

Here's the relevant info:

"Two boys, ages 16 and 15, claimed they had a gun. If they thought the 70-year-old coach would be an easy target, they guessed wrong.

Robinson struggled with the teens and then pulled out his legal, license firearm and shot them. Michael Scott, 16, was killed by the gunfire. His 15-year-old accomplice was injured."


First off, let me congratulate gramps. BUT, as per the article, the 70 year old claimed they said they have a gun. OK. Was one found at the scene (was not mentioned)? Although, if they indeed had a gun, once this 70 year old made any moves to stop the robbery....I suspect he would have been shot. It will be interesting to see, when all the evidence comes out, whether these teens did, in fact, have a gun. Now....will this ultimately end up in court, with the victims parents claiming he shot two unarmed teens? Not saying they didn't have a gun, just that there was no mention of finding a gun on the perps.


HYPOTHETICAL: Teens were unarmed.

To put a different spin on this - Snce it was black on black, in Detroit, there may be no outcry. But had this had been a white male shooting two unarmed black teens....in Detroit...oh baby! Anybody want to field this one....?

Which brings up an interesting question: If confronted by someone who claims to have a gun in their pocket, but never actually produces it, are you leagally allowed to take out your gun and shoot them based soley on their threat? Anybody know what the law actually says...in Md...outside your home?

Here's a little relevant law for you:

If you CLAIM to have a gun, and tell some one "give me your money" you can be killed (legally) in self defense by the person you threaten. They do NOT have to wait for you to pull, display, aim, or shoot the gun. The mere threat of "I have a gun, give me your money" is enough to warrant a response of deadly force, as the implied threat is "if you don't I am going to shoot and kill you."

It is a justifiable homicide. It (the robbery with implied threat of a gun) falls under the categories of "Forcible and Atrocious Crime" and "Imminent Peril" where deadly force is allowed.

[Rael]

Who cares? People CLAIM they have guns and rob banks. Don't wannna die don't do the claiming, and I doubt if this had been white on black if anyone would care either.

Don't go around robbing people (with a gun or not) and you won't have anything to worry about.

What he said...

[SalisburySage]

a 70-year-old detroit high school basketball coach will not be charged for fatally shooting a teenager and wounding another while they were trying to rob him outside of a school, a prosecutor said thursday.



how dare he defend himself against two little boys, probably just on their way to buy skittles and ice tea in their hoodies.....

lol!

[SalisburySage]

What he said...

Should be mandatory reading for all ghetto punks who think they can rob 70 yr olds.

Wonderful job Gramps!!!

[slapshot]

Who cares? People CLAIM they have guns and rob banks. Don't wannna die don't do the claiming, and I doubt if this had been white on black if anyone would care either.

Don't go around robbing people (with a gun or not) and you won't have anything to worry about.

Sooooo, your answer to my question about when you can use lethal force is: "who cares"

So noted.

[slapshot]

I think that a 70 year old might not be able to win a struggle with 2 teens, even if they did not have a gun. Does he not have the right to defend himself from the attackers, who clearly have an advantage? Or should he let them maybe pummel him to death?

Just asking a simple legal question?

[slapshot]

Here's a little relevant law for you:

If you CLAIM to have a gun, and tell some one "give me your money" you can be killed (legally) in self defense by the person you threaten. They do NOT have to wait for you to pull, display, aim, or shoot the gun. The mere threat of "I have a gun, give me your money" is enough to warrant a response of deadly force, as the implied threat is "if you don't I am going to shoot and kill you."

It is a justifiable homicide. It (the robbery with implied threat of a gun) falls under the categories of "Forcible and Atrocious Crime" and "Imminent Peril" where deadly force is allowed.

Thank you.



In Maryland (last sentence would apply in this case):

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sec...StoryID=133654

"Maryland law, however, requires retreat as a first option in most situations, Frederick County State's Attorney Charlie Smith said.

"Under the law of self-defense, one has a duty to retreat from an attacker, as long as the avenue of retreat is reasonably safe," Smith said.

According to the St. Petersburg Times, "justifiable homicides" more than tripled in the five years following the enactment of the Florida law, from 30 in 2005 to more than 100 in 2010, with the law invoked in more than 90 cases in that period.

Neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman shot Martin, but has not been arrested or charged in his death. Zimmerman has said that Martin approached him from behind and punched him before slamming his head against the ground.

Critics say the law, backed by the National Rifle Association but widely opposed by police and prosecutors, offers too much criminal immunity to people who use deadly force when they feel threatened, even if the threat is more perceived than real.

In Maryland, the common law "castle doctrine" does not compel a person to retreat when attacked in his or her home or place of business, Smith said, and a 2010 law provides civil immunity for someone who reasonably uses force -- even deadly force -- to repel such an attack.

Smith does not oppose laws that specify people can stand their ground outside the home, but he said he believes Maryland law sufficiently protects the right to self-defense. The requirement to retreat provides leeway because it applies only if there is a clear safe avenue of escape, and the ability to do so, he said.

"I've not yet seen a scenario in my 20-plus years of prosecuting where someone violated that tenet of the law, the duty to retreat," he said.

"It's like, if I'm 70 years old and this guy's 20, what am I going to do, run away from him?"


As an aside, and after reading a number of legal forums on the use of "lethal force", where people posted hypotheticals.... one of the (legal) responses was, "first and foremost, you need to be able to justify the use of deadly force to the court/DA", and that burden is going to vary from jurisdiction to juridiction and from DA to DA. One thing that will be asked is, did you actually see a gun or knife to have an "expectation of your life being in mortal danger". I interpret that to mean that a verbal threat may not be enough justification....but as the lawyers on this site said, "it all depends".

If this guy had been a 30 year old male, living in Maryland....it's not clear to me that he would not face criminal charges, or at least, face a civil lawsuit. Nevertheless, this 70 year old, in Michigan, seems to be well within his rights.

[bmorepunk]

A 70-year-old Detroit high school basketball coach will not be charged for fatally shooting a teenager and wounding another while they were trying to rob him outside of a school, a prosecutor said Thursday.



How dare he defend himself against two little boys, probably just on their way to buy Skittles and ice tea in their hoodies.....

Take the bait, people. Jeebus was associated with fishing.